Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on August 27th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1-9 are pending in the application. Claims 10-17 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 and claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Bono (WO 2013054089 A1) and in view of Vinson (US 20160068784 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Di Bono discloses a detergent dispensing cartridge for use in a washing machine (see Abstract). Di Bono further discloses the cartridge has multiple compartments: first compartment which holds a first detergent formulation and a second compartment which holds a second detergent formulation (see Abstract). Di Bono further discloses the detergent compositions may comprise anionic and non-ionic surfactants (see page 17 paragraph 1). Di Bono further discloses bleaches as optional components (see page 16 paragraph 4 and page 27 paragraph 4). “Optional” indicates that the component is not necessary.
However, Di Bono is silent as to the surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant at 15-25wt% and a nonionic surfactant system comprising C12-C15 alkyl ethoxylated alcohol having an average degree of ethoxylation of from 1 to 10 at 10-20wt%.
Vinson discloses detergent compositions, an analogous art (see Abstract). Vinson further discloses 2-alkyl primary alcohol sulfates, particularly those commercially available under ISALCHEM, as suitable 2-alkyl primary alcohol sulfates (see [0003]). Vinson further teaches branched surfactants as effective under cold water washing conditions (see [0003]). The instant specifications list alkyl sulfates commercially available under ISALCHEM as suitable. Vinson further discloses anionic surfactants at 1-75wt% (see [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 2-alkyl primary alcohol sulfates at 1-75wt%, as disclosed by Vinson, in the detergent composition, as disclosed by Di Bono, in order to prepare a detergent composition which is effective under cold water washing conditions.
Vinson further discloses any conventional nonionic surfactant may be used (see [0127]). Vinson further teaches ethoxylated nonionic surfactants with may be selected from ethoxylated alcohols having 8-15 carbon atoms and an average degree of ethoxylation of about 9 (see [0127]). Vinson further discloses nonionic surfactants at 0.1-40wt% (see [0126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, as disclosed by Vinson, in the detergent composition of Di Bono as such nonionic surfactants are conventional in the art of detergents, as disclosed by Vinson.
With regard to claim 9, Di Bono discloses chelating agents at 1-6wt% (see page 27 paragraph 4).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Bono (WO 2013054089 A1) and Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and in further view of Attar (WO 2021130707 A1).
With regard to claim 2 and claim 3, Di Bono and Vinson disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Di Bono and Vinson are silent as to the first sub-container comprising a first outlet, the second container comprising a second outlet, and said outlets spaced apart. Further, Di Bono and Vinson are silent as to the first and second outlets oriented in the same direction.
Attar discloses a cartridge for a laundry appliance, an analogous art, comprising an outer housing, a pumping portion, and an internal peristaltic pump and rotational drive that are operable to deliver chemistry from the flexible container to an outlet port defined within the pump housing and the outlet ports are oriented in the same direction (see [0003], Figure 5). The device further comprises an internal valve outlet that is biased toward a closed position ( see [00113], Figure 8 number 212). The pump contained within the outlet functions to selectively deliver a laundry chemistry (see [0003]). Attar further discloses multiple cartridges oriented in the same direction with for operating multiple pump assemblies (see [0060] and [0067], Figure 54 and Figure 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the outlet valve, as taught by Attar, for the purpose of selectively delivering the laundry chemistry, as taught by Di Bono and Vinson.
With regard to claim 4 and claim 5, Di Bono and Vinson disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Di Bono and Vinson fail to disclose a collapsible bag.
Attar discloses a cartridge for a laundry appliance, an analogous art, comprising a flexible container which collapses as it empties after multiple dosed amounts of laundry chemistry are dispensed (see [00247]). Attar further discloses the flexible container selectively holds a laundry chemistry (see [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the flexible container as taught by Attar in the multiple compartments as taught by Di Bono and Vinson to selectively hold a laundry chemistry.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Bono (WO 2013054089 A1) and Vinson (US 20160068784 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Depa (CN 10615667 A).
With regard to claim 6, Di Bono and Vinson teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Di Bono and Vinson are silent as to 0.5-2wt% of a first amine oxide and 1-3wt% of a second amine oxide.
Depa discloses a cleaning composition, preferably laundry detergents, an analogous art, comprising well known surfactants, in particular amphoteric surfactants, of which amine oxides are disclosed as preferred amphoteric surfactants from about 0.2wt% to about 10wt% (see [0151]-[0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the amine oxides as taught by Depa in the first and second laundry detergent compositions as disclosed by Di Bono and Vinson, as amine oxides are well known in the art as suitable amphoteric surfactants, as taught by Depa and Di Bono discloses amphoteric surfactants may be used (see page 17 paragraph 1).
With regard to claim 7, Di Bono and Vinson teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Di Bono and Vinson are silent as to the second anionic surfactant system and the second amine oxide system provided at a ratio of said second nonionic surfactant system and said second amine oxide system from 3.3 to 20.
With respect to the ratio of second nonionic surfactant system to second amine oxide system of 3.3 to 20 considering that Bolton teaches a second nonionic surfactant system in the range of 1-30 wt% as disclosed in [Abstract] and Depa teaches an amine oxide system in the range of 0.2-10wt% as disclosed in [0151-0153], the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 10wt% of nonionic surfactant: 3.03wt% amine oxide system or 3.3:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to claim 8, Di Bono discloses chelating agents at 1-6wt% (see page 27 paragraph 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Di Bono and Vinson to arrive at compositions specifically "free of bleach" for the first and second sub-containers, especially without any explicit suggestion or teaching away from bleach in either reference for these primary cleaning compositions.
As stated above, Di Bono discloses bleaches as optional components (see page 16 paragraph 4 and page 27 paragraph 4). “Optional” indicates that the component is not necessary. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would know that bleach may be excluded from the composition.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights